DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the award dated May 23,1980 of Mr. R.C. Chopra, Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi. The respondents-claimants have also filed their cross-objections (C.M. No. 2158/82) claiming enhancement of compensation.

(2.) THE respondents-claimants filed an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the averments that one Khem Karan Lal died in a road accident on January 12,1971 in an accident at about 8 p.m. The deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle No. DLP-4240 which was being driven by respondent No. 5. The present appellant-Dharambir Singh was the conductor of the bus. It was alleged that the deceased boarded the bus and had not even entered the same when the bus was started and when it reached Kishmere Gate in front of Ritz Cinema, respondent No. 5 took a sharp turn as a result of which the wall of Kashmere Gate struck against the body of the deceased who fell down and received multiple injuries on his body as a result of which he died in the hospital later on. It was further alleged that the conductor of the bus, appellant herein, had not waited for the passengers to settle down inside the bus and had given the signal to start the bus without caring for the safety as a result of which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was about 38 years of age at the time of accident and was having an income of Rs. 400/-per month. The owner of the bus is respondent No. 6 in the present appeal. Delhi Transport Corporation as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi were imploded as respondents before the Tribunal but in the present appeal only Delhi Transport Corporation is imploded as a party respondent. The insurer of the bus is M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 7 herein. The respondents claimants claimed compensation of Rs. one lakh and alleged that respondents 5, 6, 7 and 8 were liable to pay the said sum as they were vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by the appellant and respondent No. 5.

(3.) FOLLOWING issues were framed on pleadings of the parties :